Science Policy Around the Web – June 28, 2016

Since its discovery, CRISPR-Cas9 has become one of the hottest and most sought-after techniques and area of research in science. Whether owing to its ease of use, wide accessibility, or myriad modifications, the research and public health worlds are captivated by CRISPR. Almost one week ago, on June 21st, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) opened the door for the first use of CRISPR in humans as a potential therapeutic in a clinical trial. The trial in question focuses on the use of T-cells to fight cancer by introducing exogenous genetic material via CRISPR-Cas9, followed by the infusion of the cells into cancer patients.

This is not the first time that a gene-editing technique has been used to edit human cells. In 2014, Carl June, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania and scientific adviser on the current trial, led a trial that used zinc finger nucleases to edit T-cells in hopes of preventing viral infection. However, the recent approval of this single CRISPR proposal will most likely pave the way for many more, and in a short amount of time. The advancement of CRISPR-Cas9 in the past few years and its potential use in humans is staggering. However, an influx of clinical trials involving this technique will pose more policy discussions and questions to assure scientists and the public that the technique is being used humanely and ethically. It will be interesting to see how the definitions of what is humane and ethical in the eyes of policy-holders potentially changes in the coming years thanks to CRISPR. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

On June 23rd, 2016, the electorate of Britain voted in a referendum to leave the European Union, creatively named the “Brexit”. Fast forward several days, and the consequences of the vote on multiple levels – such as global markets, immigration, employment, timelines and next steps – are still being determined. At it’s core, the U.K.’s decision to leave was not largely based on research science. However, multiple British science authorities are flabbergasted by the decision, a majority of whom believe was a mistake.

With Britain’s decision to leave the EU, it will be interesting to see how policymakers deal with the inevitable battles in terms of funding, personnel, and travel. One particular talking point is the fate of the U.K.’s standing in the Horizon 2020 program, a massively financed research initiative with 9 billion British pounds of funding over seven years (2014-2020). The initiative provides a means of support for collaboration across different European countries, and if the U.K. would like to continue as a player in the initiative, they will have to make a decision now and start preparing the necessary documents necessary to become an “associate”, for example. Policymakers have a long, winding road ahead of them in order to ensure the survival of the myriad collaborations and research projects headed by Britain. (Daniel Clery, Science News)

The Supreme Court recently rejected the request to hear an appeal from Sequenom (San Diego, CA), a biotech. company specializing in prenatal testing. Sequenom’s test, MaterniT21, relies on the presence of fetal DNA in the plasma of the mother, allowing for a non-invasive method of analyzing the fetus for certain conditions such as Down’s syndrome (trisomy 21). The patent for the test remained intact until 2013, where in a case against Ariosa Diagnostics, a lower court ruled the patent as invalid. The Supreme Court’s failure to hear Sequenom’s appeal means that the previous ruling stands, and that poses a problem with implications far beyond a single biotech company.

Sequenom turned to the Supreme Court for thorough consideration and a final decision on whether or not their patent remains valid, although it does rely on the naturally occurring process of fetal DNA showing up in plasma. The highest justice’s silence in this situation creates an ambiguity around all patents in the biosciences. At what point does novelty evanesce into nature? Should patents, the protectors of intellectual property, really be granted in a case where natural processes are required to retain their validity? These are the types of questions that are being asked as a result of the Court’s silence, and that could plague future investments in biotechnology, a field that is highly represented by startups. (Douglas C. Pizac, AP/STATnews)